Based on my searches, here's what I found:

---

# Tech Industry & Academia Reactions to Venezuela Strike

## Silicon Valley / Tech Leaders

### Elon Musk
SpaceX founder Elon Musk supported US actions in Venezuela with the words "bravo" and "true". Musk wrote "bravo" on X in response to Vice President JD Vance's post describing the operation to detain Maduro. He responded with the word "true" to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that Maduro "is not the president of Venezuela" and is allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

**Context:** This isn't surprising given Musk's history with Maduro:
- Maduro had declared Musk his "arch-enemy" in 2024
- Maduro banned X in Venezuela
- Musk previously threatened Maduro, posting "I'm coming for you Maduro!"
- Tesla Owners Silicon Valley posted: "Nicolás Maduro declared war on Elon Musk. He banned 𝕏 in Venezuela, desperate to silence millions and bury the truth about his failing regime."

### Other Major Tech Figures
**No public statements found from:**
- Sam Altman (OpenAI)
- Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
- Sundar Pichai (Google)
- Satya Nadella (Microsoft)
- Marc Andreessen (a16z)
- Peter Thiel

This silence is notable. Given the magnitude of the event and the fact that it's still Saturday morning (the strike happened overnight), most tech executives appear to be staying out of this geopolitical controversy—at least publicly.

---

## Academia & Legal Experts

This is where there's **significant commentary**, almost uniformly critical:

### International Law Experts

**Zinaida Miller** (Northeastern University, Professor of Law and International Affairs):
"The actions of the administration of deposing and abducting the Venezuelan president are a blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force without Security Council authorization. There is no defense: this is in fact not an armed conflict, which means that the prior strikes were also unlawful. International law is quite clear that one country cannot lawfully overthrow the leader of another, nor can it try them in its domestic courts."

**Susan Breau** (Professor of International Law):
Told The Guardian that this is "a crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country."

**David M. Crane** (Former Chief Prosecutor, UN Special Court for Sierra Leone):
Writing in JURIST: "When the United States disregards the legal limits on the use of force, it undermines the very norms it relies upon to condemn aggression elsewhere. These actions weaken U.S. credibility in calling out Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which Moscow also attempts to justify through self-defense narratives and claims of fighting 'terrorists'... If the United States normalizes unilateral force, it signals to authoritarian leaders that aggression is once again an acceptable instrument of statecraft."

**Ben Saul** (UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism):
"I condemn the U.S.'s illegal aggression against Venezuela & the illegal abduction of its leader & his wife. Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life. President Trump should be impeached & investigated for the alleged killings."

### Think Tank Experts

**Christopher Sabatini** (Chatham House, Latin America expert):
Said the U.S. strikes "open up an entirely unforeseen, in many ways unexpected, series of events," and it's unclear what kind of government will emerge. He said elements of the Trump administration and the Venezuelan opposition have held a "dangerously naive" belief that "if you decapitate the regime, figuratively speaking, by removing Maduro… that would somehow lead to a democratic transition."

**Chatham House Analysis:**
"According to surveys, US citizens are opposed to the use of the military in Venezuela. And any strikes inside Venezuela now will likely force a vote in the US Congress under the War Powers Act. For now at least this is not regime change and certainly not democratic transition but a decapitation of the Maduro regime. This is already opening up divisions between the civilian members of the government (represented by Delcy Rodriguez and her brother Jorge) and the heads of the security and intelligence forces."

**Pablo Calderon-Martinez** (Northeastern University London, Associate Professor in Politics):
Commented on the geopolitical implications of the operation.

### Key Legal Arguments Against the Strike

| Legal Issue | Expert Consensus |
|-------------|-----------------|
| **UN Charter Article 2(4)** | Violated - prohibits use of force absent Security Council authorization or self-defense |
| **Self-Defense Claim** | "None of the U.S. actions against Venezuela meet these criteria" |
| **Sovereignty** | "A state may not use force inside another state without consent, Security Council authorization, or a valid self-defense claim" |
| **Precedent Concerns** | Undermines U.S. ability to criticize Russia's invasion of Ukraine |

---

## Summary

**Tech Industry:** Essentially silent except for Musk, who predictably supported the operation given his personal feud with Maduro. The silence from other major tech figures (Altman, Zuckerberg, Andreessen, Thiel, etc.) is notable—they're either avoiding the controversy or haven't commented yet.

**Academia/Legal Experts:** Near-unanimous condemnation. The overwhelming consensus is that:
1. The strike violates international law (UN Charter Article 2(4))
2. There's no valid self-defense justification
3. This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines U.S. moral authority on issues like Russia/Ukraine
4. Some experts are calling for impeachment proceedings

The split is stark: The one tech voice (Musk) celebrates it, while the legal/academic community is treating it as a textbook case of illegal aggression under international law.